Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
G-3 vs Union Of India Through on 21 December, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 3762/2012 ORDER RESERVED ON: 03.12.2012 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 21.12.2012 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A) Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, S/o Shri Rabi Narain Mohanty, An SAG officer of the Indian Statistical Service, Deputy Director General, Research and Publication Wing, Coordination and Publication Division, Central Statistics Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Wing No. 6, West Block No. 8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066. Now residing at: G-31, HUDCO Place Extension, New Delhi-110049. Applicant. (Applicant in person) Versus Union of India through The Chief Statistician of India and Secretary, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. Respondent. (By Advocate Shri R.N. Singh) O R D E R
Shri G. George Paracken:
The applicant has filed this Original Application challenging the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent-Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation to respond to his representations dated 14.09.2012 to provide him the necessary information so as to enable him to exercise his statutory and legal right and prove himself innocent by filing a comprehensive statement of defence at the initial stage of the proposed proceedings initiated against him under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by issuing the Minor Penalty Charge Sheet, vide the impugned Memorandum dated 10.09.2012 received by him on 14.09.2012. The statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it was proposed to take action against him are as under:
ARTICLE 1 As per the record of proceedings of Honble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 11th April, 2012 in MA No. 1527/2011 & 2404/2011 in OA No. 1488/2010 in the matter of Shri E. Nagachandran Vs. Union of India, Shri T.R. Mohanty, DDG of Indian Statistical Service appeared in person on behalf of the applicant in the above cases i.e. Shri E. Nagachandran, Deputy Director.
The appearance of Shri T.R. Mohanty, DDG, in CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi on 11th April, 2012 in MA No. 1527/2011 & 2404/2011 in OA No. 1488/2010 in the matter of Shri E. Nagachandran Vs. Union of India on behalf of the applicant in the above cases and against the Union of India is a conduct prejudicial to the interest of Union of India. Therefore, Shri T.R. Mohanty, DDG has indulged in an activity which is unbecoming of a government servant and thus he has violated Rule 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE II As per the record of proceedings of Honble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 11th April, 2012 in MA No. 1527/2011 & 2404/2011 in OA No. 1488/2010 in the matter of Shri E. Nagachandran Vs. Union of India, Shri T.R. Mohanty, DDG of Indian Statistical Service appeared in person on behalf of the applicant i.e. Shri E. Nagachandran, Deputy Director in cases against Union of India without seeking any kind of leave or permission from his Controlling Officer to absent himself from office.
Shri T.R. Mohanty, DDG, appeared in CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi on 11th April, 2012 in MA No. 1527/2011 & 2404/2011 in OA No. 1488/2010 in the matter of Shri E. Nagachandran Vs. Union of India on behalf of the applicant in the above cases by deserting his post during office hour and remaining absent from his office to attend the court cases on behalf of applicant and against the Union of India.
This act of deserting his post and absenting himself from office unauthorizedly by Shri T.R. Mohanty, DDG on 11th April, 2012, is a conduct unbecoming of a government servant and thus he has violated Rule 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. List of documents referred in statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour against Shri T.R. Mohanty, DDG of Indian Statistical Service.
(i) Record of proceeding dated 11th April 2012 of Honble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in MA No. 1527/2011 & MA No. 2404/2011 in OA No. 1488/2010 (copy enclosed).
(ii) Note dated 02.05.2010 of ADG (CAP), CSO, MOSP1 and Controlling Officer of Shri T.R. Mohanty, DDG regarding non-permission by Shri T.R. Mohanty, DDG to absent himself from duty to attend the CAT on 11th April, 2012 (copy enclosed).
2. On receipt of the aforesaid charge sheet, the applicant made a representation on 14.09.2012 stating that he is innocent and he wanted a fair opportunity to prove his innocence which, according to him, is an extremely difficult task in the face of a totally biased set of officers. He has also disclosed that his defence would be on the following grounds:
(a) The Show Cause Notice was issued without jurisdiction, in any case without the mandatory approval of the Honble Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Statistics and Programme Implementation;
(b) The Show Cause Notice was issued to me seeking explanation of certain issues, while the Charge Sheet has been issued on totally different issues;
(c) The Charge Sheet has been issued without waiting for a reply to the Show Cause Notice;
(d) The advice of the Department of Personnel and Training has been obtained by fraud;
(e) The approval of the Honble Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Statistics and Programme Implementation for the Charge Sheet has been obtained by fraud.
(f) The Charge Sheet does not have the approval of the Honble Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Statistics and Programme Implementation for the Charge Sheet/The Charge Sheet approved by the Honble Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Statistics and Programme Implementation has been replaced by the present Charge Sheet issued to me; and
(g) The Ministry does not have its facts right, and the allegations against me are false, motivated and manufactured, besides being contrary to law. In order to substantiate his contentions, he has also requested the respondent to supply him with the authenticated copies of the entire file including all Note Sheets and correspondences, as well as the draft charge sheet as approved by the Honble Minister of State (independent charge) as the disciplinary authority dealing with the show cause notices dated 02.05.2012 and 31.05.2012 issued in this regard and the present charge sheet dated 10.09.2012. The applicant has also informed the respondent Ministry that after receiving the requisite information, he would submit a comprehensive written statement of defence proving his innocence and will seek a personal hearing to clarify the issues. However, according to him, a period of one and a half months has passed since he has made the first representation but there was no response from the respondents. He has, therefore, made at least two more reminders to the respondents but by not responding to them, according to him, they are purposely delaying the proposed minor penalty proceeding causing grievous harassment to him. He has also submitted that the respondent-Ministry is deliberately preventing the course of natural justice and thus preventing him from proving his innocence. Further, relying on Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, he stated that a delinquent Government servant can ask for inspection of documents and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, and the existing instructions also make it clear that such requests should be closely examined with due application of mind and not rejected perfunctorily. Further, according to him, the extant Executive Instructions also provide for inspection of all the relevant documents and not only the prosecution documents. He has also stated that he has been at the receiving end from the Respondent Ministry for quite some time and it resulted in several court cases. However, on 21.11.2008, an amicable solution was reached and the Honble High Court of Delhi passed the following orders:
The clash between an officer and the department has resulted in multifarious proceedings. Fortunately, it has been possible to find an amicable settlement of the disputes in view of the good offices of the Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty who appears in person. It is, thus, agreed that all these writ petitions be disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The observations regarding the power of the DOPT/UPSC for grant of relaxation in the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for promotion made in the impugned order are set aside leaving the question open to be decided in an appropriate case.
(ii) Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI) shall remove the recordable warning issued to Shri Tushar Ranjan Mohanty on 27.06.2006 from his ACR dossier and the same be placed only in his personal file.
(iii) Shri Tushar Ranjan Mohanty hereby withdraws all cases/writ/petitions filed by him in this Court/CAT, against the Union of India and any officer of the Union of India including the following:-
WP(C)3487/2007and Miscellaneous/Criminal Applications/Petitions, including contempt petitions, pending if any, before any Court of Law/Tribunal.
WP (C) 7622/2007 and Miscellaneous/Criminal applications/Petitions, pending if any, before any Court of Law/Tribunal.
Criminal MA No. 7219/07 in WP (C) 1898/07 against Sh. K.B. Arora formerly Under Secretary, in MOSPI.
Any Miscellaneous/Criminal Applications/Petitions, including contempt petitions, pending if any, before any Court of Law/Tribunal filed by Shri T.R. Mohanty against UOI or any officer of UOI in WP (C) 1898/07, 4346/07 and 8748/07.
OA No. 12/2008 (Shri E. Nagachandran and Shri T.R. Mohanty Vs. UOI) and Miscellaneous Applications, pending if any, before the CAT, PB, ND.
OA No. 1831/2007 (Shri E. Nagachandran and Shri T.R. Mohanty Vs. UOI) and Miscellaneous Applications, pending if any, before the CAT, PB, ND.
Contempt Petitions (CP No. 461/07 in OA No. 1712/06, CP No. 424/07 in OA No. 1712/06, CP No. 147/07 in OA No. 1831/06 etc) and other contempt petitions, if any, filed by Shri T.R. Mohanty against the UOI or any officer of UOI before CAT, PB, New Delhi.
All Miscellaneous Applications including MA No. 2242/07 in OA No. 1381/07, MA No. 1141/07 in OA No. 1712/06, MA No. 2366/07 to MA 2371/07 in OA 1712/06 and other MAs, filed if any, by Shri T.R. Mohanty, in OA No. 1831/06.
(iv) Union of India hereby withdraws the writs filed by them against Shri T.R. Mohanty viz., WP (C) 1898/2007, WP (C) 4346/2007 and WP (C) 8748/2007.
(v) The MOSPI will hold a review meeting of the Internal Selection Committee (ISC) for assessment of suitability of Shri Tushar Ranjan Mohanty for promotion to the SAG on adhoc basis as per the extant rules as early as possible (but not later than two months from receipt of this order) by not treating the recordable warning issued to him as a part of his ACR dossier.
The petitions are accordingly disposed of. However, according to the applicant, even thereafter the Respondent Ministry did not fulfil their part of the amicable settlement, even though he withdrew all the cases immediately.
3. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant has approached this Tribunal with the present O.A. seeking the following reliefs and interim reliefs:
Reliefs:
8.1 to allow the present application;
8.2 to direct the Respondent to dispose of the representations of the applicant by providing the applicant with the requisite information;
8.3 to direct the Respondent to grant two weeks time to the applicant after supply of the information/documents to submit his written statement of defence in response to the charge-sheet dated 10.09.2012 and make any such further requests that are admissible to the Government servant under the rules and the law;
8.4 to direct the Respondent to thereafter consider the oral and written submissions of the applicant and take appropriate decision to be conveyed to the applicant in terms of a reasoned and speaking order;
8.5 to allow exemplary costs of the application; and 8.6 to issue any such and further order/directions this Honble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Interim Reliefs:
Pending final decision on the application, the applicant seeks the following interim relief:
9.1. The applicant respectfully prays that this Honble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to stay further action in the disciplinary proceedings; and 9.2 The applicant respectfully prays that this Honble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to direct that the Minor Penalty Charge Sheet issued to the applicant shall not stand in the way of any service benefit that would otherwise accrue to the applicant.
4. The Single Member Bench of this Tribunal, vide its order dated 08.11.2012, held that the aforesaid interim relief cannot be given to the applicant. However, notice on the interim relief was issued, returnable on 23.11.2012. On that date, the learned counsel for the respondent appeared and requested for some time to file a short reply on the maintainability of the O.A. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 26.11.2012 but the Honble Single Member ordered to place the matter before a Division Bench and thus the case has been listed for 03.12.2012 before the present Bench.
5. On 03.12.2012 when the matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the respondent produced a copy of the Office Memorandum No. F. No. 11018/4/2012/ISS dated 23.11.2012 issued by the Respondent Ministry to the applicant in reply to his representation dated 14.09.2012 informing him that all the relevant documents in terms of the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which could be disclosed, have already been made available to him with the minor penalty charge sheet vide Memorandum of even No. dated 10.09.2012 and, therefore, his request could be acceded to. They have further submitted that the minor penalty proceedings are under investigation and penalty has not been imposed so far and, therefore, there is no requirement to show the file before the conclusion of the proceedings. However, as per rules, after conclusion of the proceedings, the contents of the file will be disclosed to him for seeking appropriate remedy. He was, therefore, again asked to submit his representation on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour within the next 10 days so that the matter can be placed before the disciplinary authority to take a final view. The said Office Memorandum has been taken on record with the consent of the parties and it reads as under:-
F.No.11018/4/2012-ISS Government of India Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg New Delhi-110001 Dated 23rd November, 2012 Office Memorandum Subject: Minor Penalty proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965- request for supply of documents-Disposal regarding.
Reference is invited to representation of Shri T.R. Mohanty, DDG vide letter No.DDG-TRM/PF/CSO-RPU/2012/1 dated 14th September, 2012 addressed to Honble MOS (IC) regarding supply of documents in connection with Minor Penalty Charge Sheet dated 10th September, 2012. In this regard, Shri Mohanty, DDG is informed that all the relevant documents in terms of provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to be disclosed have already been made available with Minor Penalty Charge Sheet vide Memorandum of even No. dated 10th September, 2012. The matter regarding Minor Penalty proceeding is under investigation and penalty has not been imposed so far. Accordingly, the request for supply of copy of file related to Minor Penalty Proceedings as requested in para 4 and para 5 of the representation dated 14th September, 2012 is not relevant and there is no requirement to show the file at this stage. After conclusion of the proceeding as per the rules the contents of the file can be disclosed to Shri Mohanty, DDG for seeking appropriate remedy.
2. Shri T.R. Mohanty, DDG is accordingly requested to submit his representation on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour within a period of 10 days of receipt of this OM, so that the matter can be placed before the Disciplinary Authority to take a final view.
3. This issues with the approval of Honble MOS (IC).
6. The learned counsel for the Respondent Shri R.N. Singh has, therefore, made the preliminary submission that by issuing the aforesaid O.M. dated 23.11.2012, this O.A has become infructuous as one of the prayers of the applicant was to dispose of his representation by providing him with requisite information/documents.
7. The applicant, on the other hand, relying upon the judgment of this Tribunal in Dhirendra Chandra Debnath Vs. Union of India (2003 (3) SLJ 258 CAT) argued that the aforesaid O.M. dated 23.11.2012 has been issued in violation of Rule 19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In the said case, the applicant therein had initially challenged the charge sheet, enquiry proceedings, enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority before this Tribunal. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal, the appellate authority issued its order. Challenging the same, he contended that since the O.A. was admitted on 16.07.1992, the appeal which has been filed earlier and pending would abate under Section 19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Therefore, the appellate order issued during the pendency of the OA on 23.11.1992, without taking leave of the court, is bad in law and not sustainable. Another ground taken by the applicants counsel therein was that the disciplinary authority exercising power under Rule 16 by issuing the charge sheet could not have enhanced it by the appellate authority as it had no jurisdiction to do so. While disposing the O.A., this Tribunal held that the contention of the applicants counsel with regard to the appellate order was correct as the O.A. was admitted on 16.07.1992 while the appellate order was passed on 23.11.1992 without taking leave of the Court. In that regard, the co-ordinate Bench relied upon the provisions contained in Section 19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act in Chapter-IV which reads as under:
Where an application has been admitted by a Tribunal under Sub-section (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject matter of such application pending immediately before such admission shall abate and save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules.
8. On merit, the learned counsel for the respondents Shri R.N. Singh has submitted that the listed documents in the charge sheet have already been made available to the applicant and the copy of the entire file dealing with the minor penalty charge sheet is not relevant in the context of the charges framed against him. The learned counsel has also argued that the applicant is adopting dilatory tactics. He has also stated that in terms of the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 relating to minor penalty proceedings, the charged officer has to be given only reasonable opportunity of making the representation and the same has already been given by making available the listed documents as mentioned in the charge sheet. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in IDL Chemicals Ltd. Vs. T. Guttaiah (1995 (Supp.) 3 SCC 573) wherein it has been observed that issuing the charge sheet, calling for explanation and giving due consideration to it is a procedure sufficient for imposing a minor penalty. The relevant part of the said judgment is as under:
The penalty of stoppage of two increments simpliciter was imposed upon the appellant. He was given a charge sheet and his explanation was called and taken into consideration. Nothing more need to be done so far as the procedure for imposing minor penalty is concerned.
9. The respondent has also submitted that in a minor penalty proceedings, the only requirement is that before any minor punishment is imposed, the employee has to be given an opportunity of making a representation in respect of the charge against him and the opportunity should be real and not merely illusory and the said requirement has been duly followed in the present case. In this regard, it has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Shadi Lal Gupta Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1973 SC 1224) wherein it has been held as under:
(a) The employee concerned is informed of the allegations against him with full particularity relating to the alleged misconduct. All necessary details must be given so that he can understand them and make an effective reply.
(b) In case the employee makes a request for inspection of some official records before submitting his reply, he should be allowed access to the relevant official records for taking extracts as he likes. He should also be given suitable extension of time to submit a reply.
(c) The reply, if any, submitted by the employee should be considered objectively.
10. Further, according to the respondent, in disciplinary proceedings, though the charged officer has the right to have access to defence documents but the said right is not absolute. In this regard, they have referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K.V. Perumal (1995 (5) SCC 474) wherein it has been held that the document must be relevant to the case and the relevance should be specifically stated by the employee. It is only then the Inquiry Officer/disciplinary authority is bound to supply relevant document but not each and every document asked for by the delinquent employee. But in the instant case, the respondent has submitted that the applicant, instead of responding to the specific charges for which all relevant and listed documents have already been available to him, is asking for copy of the entire file dealing with the minor penalty charge sheet on the ground of alleged procedural irregularities. This indicates that the documents sought by him are not relevant and it is only an attempt to divert the attention from the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet. All the procedural requirements before the issue of minor penalty charge sheet have been followed and the respondents will produce the relevant file before the Tribunal before adjudicating the matter.
11. We have heard the applicant in person and Shri R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Both the parties have agreed for the final disposal of this case with the available documents on record. As far as the preliminary submission made by the respondents counsel that with the issuance of O.M. dated 23.12.2012 by the respondent during the pendency of this O.A., the O.A. itself has become infructuous is concerned, we do not find any merit in it. Of course, one of the reliefs sought by the applicant is to direct the respondent to dispose of the representations of the applicant by providing him with the requisite information. So long as requisite information as sought for has not been provided to the applicant, by rejecting the representation during the pendency of the O.A by the said O.M., will not make any material change in the O.A. Therefore, the contention of the respondents counsel that this O.A has become infructuous is absolutely misconceived.
12. As far as the merits of the case is concerned, admittedly, the respondent has proposed to take action against the applicant only for imposing minor penalties and the procedure for doing so is stated in Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which is as under:
16. PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING MINOR PENALTIES:
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of rule 11 shall be made except after-
(a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;
(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration;
(d) recording a finding on each imputation or misconduct or misbehaviour; and
(e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary.
13. Rule 16 (1) (a) makes it mandatory that no order imposing any minor penalty on a Government servant can be made except after giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal to take any action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken. Now the question that would arise is with regard to the scope and meaning of reasonable opportunity of making representation. It has been held by the Honble High Court of Kerala in Kunhikannan Nambiar Vs. Government of Kerala (ATJ 2002 (3) 384) that what constitute reasonable opportunity has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case:-
It is settled law that the charge-sheeted employee shall be given reasonable opportunity to defend his case. What is reasonable opportunity has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the case and not solely based on the quantum of penalty that might finally be imposed on the employee. The impugned proceedings suffer from, at least, two infirmities (i) Charges have not been proved by adducing evidence in support of the allegations and (ii) Reasonable opportunity as required by law was not afforded to the petitioner before he was found guilty of the charges. The result is that the orders passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained. Exts. P5, P7 and P8 are liable to be quashed and I do so.
Original Petition is allowed. No costs.
14. The Apex Court in U.P. Government Vs. Sabir Hussain (1975 (4) SCC 703) held that the broad test of "reasonable opportunity" is, whether in the given case, the show cause notice issued to the delinquent servant contained or was accompanied by so much information as was necessary to enable him to clear himself of the guilt, if possible, even at that stage, or, in the alternative, to show that the penalty proposed was much too harsh and disproportionate to the nature of the charge established against him. Again in K.L. Shinde Vs. State of Mysore (1976 (3) SCC 76), the Apex Court held that Whether a delinquent had a reasonable opportunity of effectively defending himself is a, question of fact depending on circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid in that behalf.
15. Rule 16 does not explicitly provide for the accused Government servant to inspect records for preparing his written statement of defence. But there may be cases where minor enquiry proceedings under Rule 16 (ibid) have been ordered based on the documentary evidences. In such cases, denial of access to records will handicap the government servant in preparing his defence. Considering this aspect, Rule 77 of the P&T Manual Vol.III provides that the Disciplinary Authority may grant permission to the accused official to inspect the relevant records to enable him to submit his defence.
16. In the present case, the applicant has been accused of appearing in a case of another person in this Tribunal on 11.04.2012. It has also been stated that the Applicant has appeared on behalf of the applicant in the said case and against the Union of India. His conduct was, therefore, considered as prejudicial to the interest of the Government of India. The other charge against the Applicant is that he appeared for another Government servant in this Tribunal without availing leave or with the permission of the Controlling Officer. Yet another accusation against the applicant is that he deserted his post during office hour. The Applicants contention is that aforesaid charges are the handiwork of the administrative machinery in the Respondent Ministry which is based against him and they are meant to harass him by wrong devious means and forged documents. On the other hand, he has contended that he is innocent and wanted a fair opportunity to prove his innocence.
17. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the respondents could not have in the first instance delayed the matter. While the applicant has requested the respondent to provide him documents/information on 14.09.2012 and reminded them at least twice, they prolonged the matter for over two months to reply him. In many cases, keeping an employee under the cloud of disciplinary proceedings for long period would cause irreparable damages to him. Now coming back to impugned Memorandum dated 10.09.2012 proposing to initiate departmental proceedings against the applicant under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, two documents have been supplied to the applicant, one is an order of this Tribunal and other is a Note of his Controlling Officer. The contention of the applicant that the said documents are not sufficient to put up his defence by way of representation. He has, therefore, sought copy of the entire file, including all Note Sheets and correspondences, as well as the Draft Charge Sheet approved by the Minister of the Respondent Ministry dealing with the Show Cause Notice No. 11024/4 (II)/2011-ISS dated 02.05.2012, Show Cause Notice No. 11018/4/2012-ISS dated 31.05.2012 and the present Charge Sheet under reference dated 10.09.2012. The respondent, as stated earlier, did not respond to his request for over two months. However, the applicant filed this O.A on 06.11.2012, the respondent issued a Memorandum dated 23.11.2012 rejecting his request for supplying the documents simply saying that they are not relevant. As held by the Apex Court in Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2008 (7) SCALE 750), any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it.
18. In our considered view, the stand taken by the respondent altogether denying documents sought by the applicant and holding them as not relevant is arbitrary. We at the same time do not agree with the applicants demand to provide him with the copies of the entire file. The applicant being an employee of the respondent, both operating from the same place, can inspect the documents sought for and make notes for the purpose of making a suitable representation to the show cause notice issued to him. When there is already a provision under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to make available the copies of the relevant orders/documents as admissible under its provisions, the applicant could have made used of it. We also find the stand now taken by the Respondents in their Office Memorandum dated 23.11.2012 is quite strange. They are ready to disclose the contents of the file but after conclusion of the proceedings. It is a well settled principle of law that the post decisional opportunity being given to a delinquent government servant is not proper opportunity in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
19. We, therefore, partly allow this O.A. and quash and set aside the OM dated 23.11.2012 and permit the applicant to inspect the documents sought for by him. If he makes a written request to that effect to the Respondent Department, it shall permit the applicant to inspect the documents sought for by him within 10 days from receipt of such request. Thereafter, he may submit a comprehensive defence statement/representation within 10 days thereafter. On receipt of the same, the Respondent shall take a decision whether they would like to go ahead with the further proceedings as envisaged in Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, within the next two weeks. If they decide to go ahead with the proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the rules within a month thereafter under intimation to the applicant. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM) (G. GEROGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
`SRD